daesonesb wrote:New York will always be the epicenter of American cool. It's got music and fashion cornered. New York is definitely doing the trendsetting for pop culture right now...LA might be more glamorous, but New York is cooler.

LA is not all that glamorous for non-celebrities. It's not glamorous living with a million illegals in an overly humid and hot cesspool.

LOL. Humid? When it rains (rarely), maybe... When gets really hot, it gets so dry your skin begins to hurt.

And those illegals? They make awesome grub.

LA is more humid than any other place in America I've been to except for certain places of the South (cough Dallas) during the summer...and I've lived in 3 different regions, lived in multiple states and cities, and been to at least 2/3 of the states. LA sucks. Mexican food is also the grossest ethnic food.

How can you think Portland is cool but Seattle sucks? Portland is like a mini-Seattle. (I'm guessing you haven't been to either...) SD is alright, it's a bit overrated and it's more suburbia than a metro, but it's 10000 times better than LA.

How can you think Portland is cool but Seattle sucks? Portland is like a mini-Seattle. (I'm guessing you haven't been to either...) SD is alright, it's a bit overrated and it's more suburbia than a metro, but it's 10000 times better than LA.

Grew up in PNW, lived in Portland for a few months, been to Seattle many times. Better weather, better traffic, cheaper. I love the PNW but I have no desire to live in Seattle.

daesonesb wrote:New York will always be the epicenter of American cool. It's got music and fashion cornered. New York is definitely doing the trendsetting for pop culture right now...

trendsetting for pop culture is not a positive aspect

for those reasons NYC and LA are rejected (my tastes anyway)

+1000. I lived in Harlem last year and was eager to get the hell out of the city by the end of my lease. New York sucks if you ask me - extreme budget cuts for the metro (which rarely runs on time anyway), bedbugs everywhere, $700+ for a crammed apt (unless you're willing to trade commute time &/or saftey to find a place in flatbush, bedstuy, etc)... Yes, there's a ton of culture - but unless you have a respectable chunk of disposable income (a rarity for a law school student) it's largely inaccessible. I feel like most of the cultural opportunities in NYC also exist in slightly smaller places with lower costs of living and a less stressed populace. Notably, Chicago and Philly.

How can you think Portland is cool but Seattle sucks? Portland is like a mini-Seattle. (I'm guessing you haven't been to either...) SD is alright, it's a bit overrated and it's more suburbia than a metro, but it's 10000 times better than LA.

Grew up in PNW, lived in Portland for a few months, been to Seattle many times. Better weather, better traffic, cheaper. I love the PNW but I have no desire to live in Seattle.

Seattle has more to offer because of its size - more restaurants shops (and you can pump your own gas). It's also a lot closer to the mountains (duh). Portland traffic isn't as bad as Seattle's, but honestly, Seattle's traffic is nothing compared to traffic you find in almost any part of California...after living in the latter, traffic in other places doesn't really bother me.

New YorkSan FranciscoChicagoDenverMontreal (i know it's in canada)DC (anyone who says DC is lame and boring hasn't spent enough time/effort getting to know it)Ann Arbor- more like a big town but definitely ranks in terms of the midwestNew OrleansPhiladelphiaCharleston

How can you think Portland is cool but Seattle sucks? Portland is like a mini-Seattle. (I'm guessing you haven't been to either...) SD is alright, it's a bit overrated and it's more suburbia than a metro, but it's 10000 times better than LA.

Grew up in PNW, lived in Portland for a few months, been to Seattle many times. Better weather, better traffic, cheaper. I love the PNW but I have no desire to live in Seattle.

Seattle has more to offer because of its size - more restaurants shops (and you can pump your own gas). It's also a lot closer to the mountains (duh). Portland traffic isn't as bad as Seattle's, but honestly, Seattle's traffic is nothing compared to traffic you find in almost any part of California...after living in the latter, traffic in other places doesn't really bother me.

Portland is closer to better beaches though, and the Mt Hood/Hood River area is way cooler than Snoqualmie, or anything else in the general area near Seattle.

I lived in Seattle for a few years. Haven't lived in Portland but I have plenty of family there and I've visited many times. Is Portland as yuppy filled as Seattle? To me, the problem with Seattle is that it is a city that has become what it once mocked. It is full of young professionals, and a ton of trustafarians, who've moved there from all over the country because of Seattle's cool image which largely resulted from the early '90's grunge scene, and the truth is that Seattle seems to have become a city of young yuppies who pretend to be alt/hipster/unique art types. I don't know. Maybe I'm way off base, but the dbag per capita count in Seattle seems to be rising by the minute.

I can't believe people are trying to argue that LA is humid, or that Mexican food is gross. It only lends credence to my initial feeling that reaction on here is going to be largely regional. People are either going to gun for their spot, or gun against it. My list would be:

LASan FranciscoIndianapolisNew YorkSan Diego

But I'm pro Cali all the way. New York, while interesting, isn't the epicenter of culture that everyone is making it out to be. That shit has been exported in mass and is accessible worldwide now. What does New York honestly get that LA and Chicago won't have? There are a select few things, and these can be done on a weekend trip. It's also divided very sharply by class, in my experience. As regular pretty broke dude I just didn't have access to a lot of the interesting places. In LA you can show up in your t-shirt and shorts at the Viper Room and run into whoever (Johnny Depp and Melissa Joan Hart are, unfortunately, my two biggest encounters there). The best food in LA is four dollars or less and usually sold out of a wooden storefront by a woman who really has a tough time understanding you. There are high end bars and restaurants for when you get the itch, though.

San Fran--Only spent a week. Loved the vibe, found a couple cool spots just walking around, which is pretty rare in my experience.

Indianapolis--This seems like a dark horse, and maybe I just know the right people, but every time I go I just have a great time.

NY--Fantastic and awe-inspiring, but elitist and roped off. I spent two weeks there on two separate occasions. By the end of the second trip, the glamor was coming off.

San Diego--All day at the beach, all night in the district. Who needs more?

Fark-o-vision wrote:I can't believe people are trying to argue that LA is humid, or that Mexican food is gross. It only lends credence to my initial feeling that reaction on here is going to be largely regional. People are either going to gun for their spot, or gun against it. My list would be:

LASan FranciscoIndianapolisNew YorkSan Diego

But I'm pro Cali all the way. New York, while interesting, isn't the epicenter of culture that everyone is making it out to be. That shit has been exported in mass and is accessible worldwide now. What does New York honestly get that LA and Chicago won't have? There are a select few things, and these can be done on a weekend trip. It's also divided very sharply by class, in my experience. As regular pretty broke dude I just didn't have access to a lot of the interesting places. In LA you can show up in your t-shirt and shorts at the Viper Room and run into whoever (Johnny Depp and Melissa Joan Hart are, unfortunately, my two biggest encounters there). The best food in LA is four dollars or less and usually sold out of a wooden storefront by a woman who really has a tough time understanding you. There are high end bars and restaurants for when you get the itch, though.

San Fran--Only spent a week. Loved the vibe, found a couple cool spots just walking around, which is pretty rare in my experience.

Indianapolis--This seems like a dark horse, and maybe I just know the right people, but every time I go I just have a great time.

NY--Fantastic and awe-inspiring, but elitist and roped off. I spent two weeks there on two separate occasions. By the end of the second trip, the glamor was coming off.

San Diego--All day at the beach, all night in the district. Who needs more?

Yeah, I didn't find LA to be humid at all, and the Mexican food is awesome.

umichgrad wrote:New YorkSan FranciscoChicagoDenverMontreal (i know it's in canada)DC (anyone who says DC is lame and boring hasn't spent enough time/effort getting to know it)Ann Arbor- more like a big town but definitely ranks in terms of the midwestNew OrleansPhiladelphiaCharleston

qualster wrote:Portland is closer to better beaches though, and the Mt Hood/Hood River area is way cooler than Snoqualmie, or anything else in the general area near Seattle.

I lived in Seattle for a few years. Haven't lived in Portland but I have plenty of family there and I've visited many times. Is Portland as yuppy filled as Seattle? To me, the problem with Seattle is that it is a city that has become what it once mocked. It is full of young professionals, and a ton of trustafarians, who've moved there from all over the country because of Seattle's cool image which largely resulted from the early '90's grunge scene, and the truth is that Seattle seems to have become a city of young yuppies who pretend to be alt/hipster/unique art types. I don't know. Maybe I'm way off base, but the dbag per capita count in Seattle seems to be rising by the minute.

lol at trustafarians

Portland is better than Seattle for the reasons I mentioned, plus because most people have yet to figure out that it's better than Seattle. Although Seattle is prettier.

umichgrad wrote:New YorkSan FranciscoChicagoDenverMontreal (i know it's in canada)DC (anyone who says DC is lame and boring hasn't spent enough time/effort getting to know it)Ann Arbor- more like a big town but definitely ranks in terms of the midwestNew OrleansPhiladelphiaCharleston

qualster wrote:Portland is closer to better beaches though, and the Mt Hood/Hood River area is way cooler than Snoqualmie, or anything else in the general area near Seattle.

I lived in Seattle for a few years. Haven't lived in Portland but I have plenty of family there and I've visited many times. Is Portland as yuppy filled as Seattle? To me, the problem with Seattle is that it is a city that has become what it once mocked. It is full of young professionals, and a ton of trustafarians, who've moved there from all over the country because of Seattle's cool image which largely resulted from the early '90's grunge scene, and the truth is that Seattle seems to have become a city of young yuppies who pretend to be alt/hipster/unique art types. I don't know. Maybe I'm way off base, but the dbag per capita count in Seattle seems to be rising by the minute.

Seattle has beautiful lakes and the Puget Sound rubbing all over it, which gives it ferries and whales, both of which are fucking awesome, and easy access to Mt Rainier (probably one of the most beautiful mountains in the lower 48) and the San Juans (probably the most beautiful place in America). Yes, Portland has Forest Park and those rivers, but I think Seattle wins out in terms of natural beauty.

Are either cities doing that well in terms of music right now? I can't think of a really great band from either at this point, though my suspicion is that Portland (including Olympia here, I guess) has an overall edge on the whole DIY culture thing at this point. As for yuppies, that's just a natural side effect of trend to urban living over suburban and the lessening of white flight. They are probably more pronounced in Seattle simply because Seattle has a significantly larger metro area, and therefore more successful young professionals to pull in, and a more functioning economy (unemployment is what, 15 or so % in Portland now?).

They're both pretty cool cities, but I think Seattle's greater beauty and simply larger population help it win out.

Meh, if the San Juans count for Seattle then the Oregon Coast counts for Portland. I do love me some NW WA, born and raised, it really is one of the best places in the world. Just wouldn't want to live in Seattle proper (or Everett, Tacoma, or Bellevue, all of which are even worse; Portland on the other hand has some nice burbs--Clackamas County and Oregon City come to mind).

Seriously? NY is the center of America's fashion, art, publishing and finance industries. For almost a decade, NY, and particularly Brooklyn, have been more influential in music than any other place I can think of. You might have museums, concerts and publishing houses in Chicago and LA, but these aren't going to be nearly as extensive as NYC's art and literary worlds. Though no one goes through Ellis Island anymore, NYC is still a major immigration center (it's the only thing that keeps its population from shrinking) and has probably more cultural diversity than LA and Chicago can match. It's also more than twice the size of LA and three times as large as Chicago; with that many more people, and significantly larger population density, there's just going to be more going on.

Fark-o-vision wrote:I can't believe people are trying to argue that LA is humid, or that Mexican food is gross. It only lends credence to my initial feeling that reaction on here is going to be largely regional. People are either going to gun for their spot, or gun against it. My list would be:

LASan FranciscoIndianapolisNew YorkSan Diego

But I'm pro Cali all the way. New York, while interesting, isn't the epicenter of culture that everyone is making it out to be.

Gun for their spot or against it? Believe it or not, I was born in SF. I just think LA sucks, and a lot of Californians do, especially people from Nor Cal. I've moved around a lot though so I don't have the typical CA view of America.

New York is definitely the epicenter of culture. I mean, just watch Project Runway or America's Next Top Model. All of the designers and models are trying to get contracts in New York and/or show in New York.

qualster wrote:Portland is closer to better beaches though, and the Mt Hood/Hood River area is way cooler than Snoqualmie, or anything else in the general area near Seattle.

I lived in Seattle for a few years. Haven't lived in Portland but I have plenty of family there and I've visited many times. Is Portland as yuppy filled as Seattle? To me, the problem with Seattle is that it is a city that has become what it once mocked. It is full of young professionals, and a ton of trustafarians, who've moved there from all over the country because of Seattle's cool image which largely resulted from the early '90's grunge scene, and the truth is that Seattle seems to have become a city of young yuppies who pretend to be alt/hipster/unique art types. I don't know. Maybe I'm way off base, but the dbag per capita count in Seattle seems to be rising by the minute.

Yeah, there are more "yuppies," but I don't necessarily equate being a yuppie with being a d-bag. I know a lot of engineers that moved to Seattle after undergrad to work for Microsoft (my brother included). They add an intellectual environment and the economy is doing a lot better, like the other person said, than Portland's economy. Seattle really reminds me of SF, except less "emo teens" running around, (although still a fair number of indie wanna bes), less "poser-activists" (although there are still a fair few, cough Borgen Project) and fewer crazy, psychotic homeless people and drug users. It's like a much improved SF that's also much cleaner. Seattle is really beautiful. Most beautiful place in America I've seen so far (although it doesn't have anything on the Scottish countryside).

Last edited by fortissimo on Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

How "cool" a city depends on large part on what kind of person you (or the OP) are.

For example, I dislike the cold, rain, public transportation, hipsters, over priced drinks, gay exceptionalism (but not the gays) and people who confuse weirdness for being interesting, cool, funny, or intelligent. In short, I don't think NY is cool at all.

On the other hand, I like sunshine, county music, BBQ, and politeness (however fake). This makes Nashville a pretty cool city.

Seriously? NY is the center of America's fashion, art, publishing and finance industries. For almost a decade, NY, and particularly Brooklyn, have been more influential in music than any other place I can think of. You might have museums, concerts and publishing houses in Chicago and LA, but these aren't going to be nearly as extensive as NYC's art and literary worlds. Though no one goes through Ellis Island anymore, NYC is still a major immigration center (it's the only thing that keeps its population from shrinking) and has probably more cultural diversity than LA and Chicago can match. It's also more than twice the size of LA and three times as large as Chicago; with that many more people, and significantly larger population density, there's just going to be more going on.

I'm from Chicago originally, and despite traveling all over the world and living in Paris for a while I still came back for law school. It's an awesome city and, next to Paris, is my favorite place to be. Lots of stuff to do, and the spring/summer/fall is gorgeous. Yeah, the winter sucks major ass, but you get used to it after a while and it makes the non-winter aspects all the better.

That being said, your comment about NYC vs. Chicago/LA is largely correct. It's not that NYC has things that you won't find in Chicago or LA, but rather it has more of everything that you would find in some amount in the other two. This is largely a function of population and size. To me, it's not a "quality" issue as much as it is a quantity issue. Having spent some time in NYC (though never lived there) I found it to be too big and too expensive for my tastes. I can't imagine living there on the law student budget that I'm living on in Chicago (where I'm able to do pretty well and live in a really amazing apartment). My opinions on the housing factor especially have been echoed by friends in NYC, including two who just moved from NYC back to Chicago after living there for five years, and are amazed at the difference in real estate prices.

Oh, and Minneapolis being better than Chicago? Please. That's so absurd I'm not even going to discuss it. (I lived there for about six months at one point).

I lived there for several months/years and it was a great experience, thus cool

the LA 'humidity' youre referring to could be a couple of things

-happened to be a humid day -your LA experience is limited mostly to the Valley-you're not used to all of the smog in the air

I really don't like Los Angeles. The city has very little to offer that can't be found in many other places. Beach, good Mexican food, night life, bars, clubs, restuarants, day time events, can all be found all over CA. If you live in LA, you'll likely have to spend just as much time driving to all of these places as if you lived in SD. In SF the public transport is not nearly as bad and the city is more centralized. In LA, though, you'll find the greatest number of people that think they are/should be movie stars and ought to be treated as such. Clubs? been a couple times and heard numerous accounts- the vibe is akin to people going just to see and be seen.

SD and SF are both very cool in their own ways, SF probably being more 'hip'

fortissimo wrote: LA is more humid than any other place in America I've been to except for [strike]certain places[/strike] ALL of the South (cough Dallas) during the summer...and I've lived in 3 different regions, lived in multiple states and cities, and been to at least 2/3 of the states. LA sucks. Mexican food is also the grossest ethnic food.

I'll take a shit in the pope's slippers if L.A. is more humid than anywhere in Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and the non-coastal swaths of Miss., Ala., Ga., Fla. and the Carolinas. Which is to say, the entire South.

fortissimo wrote: LA is more humid than any other place in America I've been to except for [strike]certain places[/strike] ALL of the South (cough Dallas) during the summer...and I've lived in 3 different regions, lived in multiple states and cities, and been to at least 2/3 of the states. LA sucks. Mexican food is also the grossest ethnic food.

I'll take a shit in the pope's slippers if L.A. is more humid than anywhere in Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and the non-coastal swaths of Miss., Ala., Ga., Fla. and the Carolinas. Which is to say, the entire South.

Parts of the South get cold in the fall/winter time. I was in the upper South during winter break 2 months ago and it snowed a couple of times and was as cold as the upper Midwest for 2 weeks. (Unusual winter supposedly, but still) I went again 2 weeks ago and it was still cold, about the same temps as the Upper Midwest. LA on the other hand is hot (80*+) year round it seems and the continuous humidity seems to go with it. (In fact LA is right now 30 degrees hotter than the place I was in in the South.) Parts of the South do get more humid than LA during the spring/summer time, but LA is more humid than the parts that actually cool down the rest of the year. (I hope this post makes sense...but really, you'd be surprised at how cold/dry it gets in certain areas of the South. My lips ended up peeling while I was down there and I've lived in the desert.)

Last edited by fortissimo on Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.